2 Ossington (@ Queen, NDS Properties, 4s, SMV Architects)

[interchange42]

Doubtless.

This incident is reminiscent of the Uptown demolition... with tragedy avoided this time.

42

 

[p5connex]

On Friday morning when I rode past on my way to work, there was a guy in a small front-end loader just tearing the thing down - his cabin-cage was wide open and he was completely oblivious of what he was doing. I had a feeling that something was going to happen. Not surprised at all - f-ing idiot really!

p5

 

[androiduk]

`

 

[MetroMan]

I drove by yesterday and took a cell pic of the mess:

 

[College Park]

Glad to see this underway too: that long blank stucco-faced wall on Queen was depressing.

Ossington and Bathurst are lined with these old-but-merely functional homes, which look compressed and poorly situated due to widened streets and loss of yards. More new structures with facings designed for urban streets are welcome in my opinion.

 

[urbandreamer]

5 June 2010: I was tempted to grab a piece of Victorian Toronto:

 

[Parkdalian]

^If you miss your chance now, you could probably get it when it lands at Leslie Spit.

This has been sitting like this for a few days now. Is the demo going to be as slow as the sales?

 

[urbandreamer]

19 June 2010: Another old part of Toronto is about to bite the dust--this coming week?

 

[urbandreamer]

24 (and how it appeared today) June 2010:

 

[Towered]

Stupid and needless.

 

[maestro]

I really don't see why. The new building doesn't look too shabby which can't be said for the second empire block. Sure it could be rebuilt and refabricated at great expense as some token jesture at heritage perservation but, for what purpose? Are today's design standards that poor? Maybe we should put a moratorium on any sort of demoltion then.

 

[junctionist]

I really don't see why. The new building doesn't look too shabby which can't be said for the second empire block. Sure it could be rebuilt and refabricated at great expense as some token jesture at heritage perservation but, for what purpose? Are today's design standards that poor? Maybe we should put a moratorium on any sort of demoltion then.

Another question: was Victorian design so poor and meaningless that no one should lament its destruction or want to recreate it? When I look at the Victorian Queen Street full of colourful brick blocks, arched windows, stone carvings, and crowning cornices, I think, no, they were great. It's an important side of Toronto which shouldn't be lost. Riding on a streetcar past those red brick facades from a young age is an experience of Toronto burned into so many minds.

 

[maestro]

The Victorian era is full of crap that gets passed as excellence nowadays but, that's another day, another topic.

This building has been bastardized to the point that I don't think it's fair to call it Victorian. If this is stucco clad hole is a candidate for heritage perservation than just about every else is. As a growing city we have to keep in mind that we simply don't have the luxury to perserve every detail and remnant of bygone eras. Otherwise, we end up with Tribute's awkward 426 University proposal. The higher and more particular our heritage standards, the less likely the townhouses on Charles West would of been flattened.

Ideally, it would of been great for a carefree someone with deep pockets to come along and rebuild but, again, I don't see anything wrong with the rendered replacement. It won't win any awards but, neither did the townhouses.

 

[urbandreamer]

10 July 2010:

Spooky:

Good advertisement for the "strength" of Tim Ho's caffeine?

 

[Parkdalian]

July 28th: